LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Stockdale v Hansard (1839)
This case is pivotal in understanding the limits of parliamentary privilege in English law. It clarifies the relationship between Parliament and the Courts regarding the publication of parliamentary materials.
I. Case Facts:
  • The Publication: A prison inspector's report, deemed "disgusting and obscene," mentioning an anatomical textbook, was printed and sold by Hansard (official printers) under order of the House of Commons.
  • The Lawsuit: Stockdale, the textbook's publisher, sued Hansard for libel.
  • Hansard's Defence: Hansard argued that they acted under the Commons' order, claiming the report was part of parliamentary proceedings and thus protected by parliamentary privilege (Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689). They asserted the Commons’ inherent power to publish its proceedings.
  • Stockdale's Argument: Stockdale countered that a Commons resolution couldn't override existing law.
II. The Court's Decision:
  • Rejection of Absolute Privilege: The court rejected Hansard's defence. It ruled that Parliament doesn't possess an arbitrary, absolute power overriding common law. A single House's resolution cannot create such a privilege.
  • Limits of Parliamentary Privilege: While acknowledging the Commons' important privileges, the court asserted its right to determine the extent of those privileges. The court's role is to ensure that parliamentary actions remain within its legal jurisdiction.
  • Judicial Review of Jurisdiction: The court can review whether a matter falls within Parliament's jurisdiction. However, once jurisdiction is established, the court won't scrutinize the Commons' judgment on that matter.
  • Failure of Hansard's Arguments: The court found Hansard's arguments based on necessity, custom, and universal acquiescence insufficient to establish the claimed privilege.
III. Key Legal Principles Established:
  • Parliamentary privilege is not absolute: It's subject to judicial review to determine its scope and limits.
  • Courts are the ultimate arbiters of the extent of parliamentary privilege: They decide whether an action falls within the bounds of parliamentary privilege.
  • One House of Parliament cannot unilaterally create new privileges: This requires legislation or established common law.
  • Judicial review focuses on jurisdiction, not merits: Courts will not judge the merits of a parliamentary decision if the court deems the matter falls under Parliament’s jurisdiction.
IV. Consequences and Aftermath:
  • The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840: This Act was passed directly in response to Stockdale v Hansard, granting immunity from legal action for the publication of papers authorized by either House of Parliament. This effectively resolved the issue raised by the case, but not before the Court established the important principle that even Parliament's power is subject to the rule of law.
V. Study Questions:
  1. What was the central conflict in Stockdale v Hansard?
  2. Explain the arguments of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
  3. How did the court define the limits of parliamentary privilege?
  4. What role does the court play in relation to parliamentary privileges?
  5. What was the significance of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840?
  6. How does this case illustrate the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary?
  7. What are the implications of the court’s decision for the separation of powers in the UK?
By understanding these points, you will gain a strong comprehension of this landmark case and its lasting implications on the relationship between Parliament and the courts. Remember to focus on the interplay between parliamentary privilege and the rule of law.





Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law